Posted on 06/19/2004 2:52:27 PM PDT by Tares
When Ronald Reagan used the term “evil empire” in his 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, it was clear and obvious to all that communism was the philosophy--- the “-ism”---of the evil empire. In the aftermath of September 11th, President Bush used the term “axis of evil” in an attempt to brand the enemy. Terrorism was and is the –ism that threatens liberty.
In 1983, it was easy to identify and label the advocates of communism; the Soviets were the advocates of communism. Soviet communism was the enemy opposed and defeated in the Cold War, not the Russian people. The Russian people were beneficiaries of the Soviet communist defeat.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t been so easy to label with clarity the advocates of the twenty-first century’s pre-eminent threat to liberty. “Islamic” is the term most often used to characterize the terrorism that threatens freedom. This has resulted in rhetorical backpedaling and a defensive posture in the court of world opinion. The juxtaposition of “Islamic extremism” on one hand and “[i]ts teachings are good and peaceful” on the other produces confusion and results in suspicion of American motives in the Muslim world. Linking the terms “extremism”, “fundamentalist”, and “radical” to the phrase “Islamic terrorism” hasn’t been sufficient to clear the confusion and allay suspicions. Many words have been written and spoken in an unsuccessful attempt to clear this rhetorical cloud. The failure to clear this cloud has given cover to those around the world who prefer to sit on the fence, awaiting the result in the battle between terror and liberty.
But as President Bush said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” The fence sitters are at best an obstruction in the fight against the terrorists. A new –ism is needed to disperse the rhetorical cloud and allow the fence sitters to confidently side with liberty (or, should they so choose, side with terror---to their destruction). The –ism we are fighting is Bin Ladenism. There is no need to qualify Bin Ladenism as an Islamic phenomenon, just as there was no need to qualify communism as a Russian phenomenon; it is instantly recognizable for what it is. By sticking to the term Bin Ladenism, fence sitters---Muslim and non-Muslim alike---are free to oppose the terrorists without being accused of anti-Islamism, just as opposition to Soviet communism didn’t raise the suspicion of hatred towards the Russian people. All peoples will benefit from the defeat of Bin Ladenism.
Bin Ladenism conjures up images of innocents leaping from flaming towers, suicide bombers, tribalism, exploding trains, brutal oppression of women, kidnapping and bloody beheadings---all done in the singular service of destroying liberty. Pundits can argue all they like about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, but the only thing that prevented Saddam Hussein from joining in September 11th or perpetrating his own act of terror against America was fear of being fingered with the deed. No one can argue that the now deposed Saddam wasn’t a Bin Ladenist.
Each individual will have to decide for his or her own self if Bin Ladenism is a natural outgrowth of Islamic theology. But whatever the answer, let’s clear the rhetorical smoke cloud: Death to Bin Laden. Death to his fellow travelers. Death to Bin Ladenism.
The American politicians have very limited grasp of the Islamic culture and Islamc fanatic movement in the past 25 years. There are many US think tanks with dozens of experts who really know the problem, but their recommendations keep getting filtered out! Stupid politicians on the take from the Saudis keep the US action or reaction to practically NOTHING.
It is a problem defining exactly who the enemy is.
Bin Ladenism=Isalmic terrorism=Islamic funamentalism=salafiism=Wahhabism=...
When we come down to it what we have is a group of people who don't like the way the world is going(globalism) and believe god has told them to kill and destroy civilation to stop it. Unfortunatly (for Muslims) they are basing their fight on Islam and to be honest they have a lot of ammo in the Koran. In the end it is up to them to refute this and up an end to it.
By labeling what we are fighting as bin Ladenism, rather than Islamofascism, those Muslims who wish to disavow the terror tactics can feel more confident in doing so. In effect, it would provide Muslims a rhetorical smoke screen of their own so they can in practice divorce themselves from "certain religious teachings that cannot be divorced from Islam." And the rest of the "axis of evil" can be so labeled as well, Islamic or not (i.e. North Korea). Motive is irrelevant.
My hope is that calling it bin Ladenism rather than Isalmic terrorism will make it a bit easier for them to refute it.
If it makes you happy I'll try to remember to call it bin Ladenism, as it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me.
(note: I do understand what you are trying to do, and think it's a good idea. It's important to define your terms)
Good thread!
He got the constant and the telescope named after him because we need people who can spot a good idea and make it sell.
Okay...how's this for a start?
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.